Performance Analysis of Ad-Hoc On-Demand
Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source
Routing (DSR) Under Black Hole Attacks in
Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
Ida Nurcahyani, Helmi Hartadi
Electrical Engineering Department, Universitas Islam Indonesia
Jalan Kaliurang KM 14.5, Yogyakarta, 55584 Indonesia
Email: ida.nurcahyani@uii.ac.id, helmihartadi@gmail.com,
Abstract—MANET consists of a collection of nodes which
dynamically can be made anywhere without using a fixed network
infrastructure such as a base station so that MANET becomes
vulnerable to network attacks. The black hole attack is one of
several types of attacks that occurs in MANET. A black hole
attack is an attack that causes packets around the attacking
node to disappear as of the network loses several information
and can reduce its performances. Choosing the right routing
protocol is one of the efforts to minimize the impact of black
hole attacks in MANET. This study was done to compare which
is better between AODV and DSR routing protocol during black
hole attack in MANET. From the simulation results, the AODV
routing protocol shows better values compared to DSR routing
protocol from several QoS parameters such as throughput, delay,
and packet loss; either before being hit by black hole attacks or
after being hit by single black hole and collaborative black hole
attacks.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Mobile Ad hoc ad-hoc Network (MANET) consists of a
set of wireless device points (nodes) that are dynamic and
temporary without using an existing network infrastructure
such as a base station. The MANET network does not require
infrastructure that uses large costs; therefore, there is no
need to construct physical communication networks in places
where the infrastructures are difficult to build such as on the
battlefield, in natural disasters area, forests, and oceans [1].
Each node on the MANET network not only functions
as a host but can also function as a router to forward data
packets from one device to another. In ad hoc networks,
the route between nodes on an ad hoc network is multihop;
thus, communication between nodes utilizes other nodes as
intermediaries if the direct communication range is outside
the communication destination node [2]. Ad hoc is a simple
wireless Local Area Network mode because it does not require
an access point. Each host has a transmitter and receiver to
communicate directly.
The routing protocol is a standardized setting of a node to
forward packets from one node to another. On the MANET
network, each node is a router that determines the route to be
978-1-5386-6670-8/18/$31.00
2018
c IEEE
addressed [3] Each node in the MANET network is an ad hoc
which is always moving so that it affects the MANET network
because of its changing properties along with the movement
of the node. As each node is a free-moving router, the proper
MANET network protocol is essential to help nodes sending
data quickly and more efficiently.
The dynamic MANET network makes it very vulnerable
to attacks that occur from within and outside of the network.
There are several types of attacks on the MANET network, one
of which is a black hole attack. The black hole attack works
by taking a packet that passes on the node around the black
hole node, then the packet will be discarded. Black hole nodes
place themselves in the midst of sending packets between the
sending and the receiving nodes. Black hole attacks can easily
enter the network because the attack mechanism is simple and
it can have a negative impact on the network.
A study that compares the performance of Ad-Hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) and Dynamic Source Rout-
ing (DSR) protocols in MANET has been carried out by [4].
The results of this study indicate that AODV protocol has a
better throughput value than DSR. However, AODV routing
protocol shows longer delay due to rerouting when a link was
broken compared to DSR protocol. Another study comparing
the performance of AODV and DSR routing protocols was
done by [5]. The node formation used in this study was
random with the scenario of increasing the number of nodes.
The simulation results using Network Simulator 2 (NS2)
show that the AODV routing protocol shows better results
than the DSR routing protocol. Moreover, the DSR routing
protocol had lower Quality of Service (QoS) values when the
number of nodes is increased. Meanwhile, a study of black
hole attacks detection on MANET networks was done by [6],
where detection and intervention of the black holes attacks are
done by using the AODV routing protocol. The author uses
the scheme to increase the number of nodes and utilize the
previous routing table by adding isolation information to the
nodes that have been affected. A.A. Chavan [7] et al analyzed
AODV and Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV)
routing protocol performances during black hole attack. In this
paper, simulation was done by increasing number of nodes that
involved in data transmission.
Black hole attacks on the MANET network are proven to
reduce network performance in terms of the QoS [8]. Previous
studies [4]– [6] show that the AODV protocol has advantages
over DSR routing protocols. However, in black hole attacks,
the AODV protocol performance decreases when it is hit by a
black hole attack. Nevertheless, apart from AODV and DSDV,
other networks have not been tested for their routing protocols
performance in black hole attacks. Therefore, this study aimed
to analyze the impact of black hole attacks on the AODV and
DSR routing protocol on the MANET network. The analysis
was done before and after being hit by single and collaborative
black hole attacks to show how much black hole attacks
affecting the performance of both routing protocols.
This paper is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides a
brief description of the functions and mechanisms of routing
protocols as well as an explanation of black holes attacks on
MANET networks. Meanwhile, Chapter 3 explains the system
that was built and the parameters used to simulate the MANET
network with and without black hole attacks. Chapter 3 also
presents graphs and analysis of simulation results. Finally,
Chapter 4 provides the conclusions of the paper.
II. MANET ROUTING P ROTOCOLS
A routing protocol is standardization of node settings for
route search. MANET routing protocols are classified into
three, namely reactive, proactive, and hybrid [9]. This study
compared the protocols from the reactive class, namely AODV
and DSR. Proactive protocol routing works by flooding nodes
that are connected to information regarding their neighbors.
Proactive routing protocols store routing information and
maintain it up to date, by exchanging packages to neighbors.
Examples of proactive protocols are DSDV, OLSR, WRP,
and others [10]. Meanwhile, reactive routing protocol works
only when there is a node that requests to find the route to
the destination. This reduces the overhead that occurs in the
proactive protocol. Examples of reactive protocols are AODV,
DSR, and others [9]. The hybrid class protocol works by
combining the advantages of reactive and proactive classes
[11].
A. Ad-Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV)
AODV is one of the reactive protocols in MANET that
works according to demand. In AODV, the route from one
node to another will be created if the source node wants the
packet to be sent to the selected destination node. Nodes in
AODV will store the routing table for only one destination
node for one route [12]. In AODV routing, if the route is not
used at the specified time, the route will be removed from the
routing table. The route search process on AODV is divided
into two types, namely, route discovery and route maintenance.
Route discovery uses two packages, Request Route (RREQ)
and Route Reply (RREP). Meanwhile, Route Maintenance
using the Route Error (RERR) package. To generate a routing
loop-free route, AODV uses the sequence number feature.
S: Source
D: Destination
Fig. 1. AODV routing scheme
Routing loops can be defined as the conditions when a packet
that is transmitted on a route never reaches the destination.
In AODV, if there is a packet delivery request to a node, the
RREQ packet will be distributed to the surrounding nodes. If
the node receiving the RREQ packet has information of the
route to the destination node, the node will reply by sending
the RREP packet to the source node as in Fig. 1. However, if
the node doesn’t know it, the RREQ message will be broadcast
again by the node to the surrounding nodes after the hop
counter value is added.
In AODV, nodes use sequence numbers to keep correct in-
formation of reverse paths leading to the source node. Reverse
path is formed when RREQ goes through the intended node,
where each RREQ will be identified from the surrounding
nodes that sent the RREQ earlier. When the destination node
has the route information and receives the RREQ packet, the
sequence number value in RREQ will be compared. If the
sequence number value in RREQ is greater than the value in
the receiving node, then the RREQ packet will be forwarded
to the surrounding node. In contrast, if the sequence number
value on the receiving node is the same or greater than the
value in RREQ, then the RREP packet will be sent by the node
to return to the source node using the reverse path that was
created previously. Thus, the function of the Reverse Path is
to enable the destination node to reach the source node, which
will be used as a route for sending data packets [13].
Furthermore, if the route has been formed, then the source
node is responsible for maintaining the route. If there is an
error in the future, the Route Maintenance will send the RERR
packet to the damaged node and to all the nodes in the network
until it is back to the source. AODV routing protocol can
adapt to its changing node formation dynamically. Moreover,
the routing head size of this protocol is small so that the
bandwidth can be used efficiently [14]. Still, because AODV
routing protocol only creates route table based on request, not
periodically, the transmission of a new node with different
topology will result in longer delay [14].
B. Dynamic Source Routing (DSR)
DSR is also one of the few reactive routing protocols
available like AODV. DSR has a few similar mechanisms with
AODV. DSR uses two mechanisms to connect routes by Route
Discovery and Route Maintenance using the RREP, RREQ,
and RRER packages.

S: Source
D: Destination
Fig. 2. DSR routing scheme
One of the differences between DSR and AODV is that
the DSR route selection is based on the source node. DSR
does not have a periodic messaging feature like AODV. DSR
has a Cache Memory feature that functions as a storage for
all routing information available on the network. The cache
memory makes the process of network recovery easier if the
network topology changes suddenly. DSR no longer needs to
route discovery if there is a topology change. DSR only needs
to find the route available in the cache memory that stores
routing information [14].
The route search mechanism on DSR is nearly similar with
AODV, that is, if the source node wants to send data but
does not have information of the route to be passed, DSR
will start the route search process by distributing the RREQ
packet to its nearest node. The RREQ package sent contains
the sender’s address and destination. The nodes that receive the
RREQ packet will store information of the path into the cache
memory. If a route has been found, the node will send the
RREP packet to reply to its original route. The RREP package
is sent using the Reverse Path line that was formed when
sending the RREQ package. The route search process on DSR
can be seen in Fig. 2. DSR protocol is able to provide routes
with many paths and minimize route maintenance process that
usually should be done continuously [14]. Nevertheless, due to
its use of cache memory in storing paths, this protocol cannot
withstand too much additional network load [14].
C. Black Hole Attack
Black hole attack is one of the attacks that can occur on
the network. Black holes work by absorbing packets around
the attacking node, after which they reply with a fake RREP
packet and then throw it away. Black hole attacks are divided
into two types, namely attacks that are only carried out by one
attacking node and collaborative black hole attacks carried out
by more than one node working together [15].
In black hole attack, the attacking node tells the source node
that the attacking node has the shortest route to the destination
node. When the attacking node receives the RREQ packet,
then it immediately sends a fake RREP packet to the source
node. The attacking node does not check information of the
destination node. The attacking node also states that it is the
node with the shortest and newest route by manipulating RREP
and sending the wrong hop count [6].
S: Source
RREQ
D: Destination Fake RREP
Fig. 3. Black hole attack
In this way, the source node will reject the RREP packet
from another node that has replied to the RREQ packet, even
though the reply route is the correct one. Therefore, the route
between the source and the attacker will be formed and then
the packet will be discarded by the attacking node [13]. The
illustration of the black hole attack is shown in Fig. 3.
III. S IMULATION AND A NALISYS
In this study, the performance of each protocol was assessed
by making several different scenarios. The first scenario was
in the form of default settings when the node had not been
hit by a black hole attack. The second scenario was when the
second routing protocol was hit by a black hole attack. Finally,
the last scenario was when the MANET network was hit by
a black hole from a collection of attacker nodes that formed
collaborative black holes. Fig. 4 shows the MANET topology
with 3 colaborative attacks.
Fig. 4. Network topology with collaborative attacks
For the scenario without black hole attacks, each routing
protocol (AODV and DSR) was tested with predetermined
parameters. Scenario 1 used the usual settings for both routing
protocols. Each routing protocol was tested with nodes totaling
30 nodes + 1 server.
Meanwhile, the scenario with black hole attacks was divided
into 2 parts. The first part was a black hole single attack
scenario while the second part was a collaborative black hole
attack that involved three nodes that become black holes in
the network. Table I shows the specification of the scenarios
 TABLE I
S IMULATION PARAMETERS

Parameters Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Area 1 km2 1 km2 1 km2
Normal node 30 nodes 29 nodes 27 nodes
Black hole node 0 node 1 node 3 nodes
Data rate 11 Mbps 11 Mbps 11 Mbps
Node mobility Random waypoint Random waypoint Random waypoint
Aplication FTP FTP FTP
Application traffic high load high load high load

250 3.5
216.14 3.072
207.33
197.9 3
200 2.521
Throughput (kbit/s)

2.5 2.246

Delay (ms)
150
2

1.5
100
73.42 70.18 64.75
1 0.719 0.718
0.623
50
0.5

0 0
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

AODV DSR AODV DSR

Fig. 5. Throughput results Fig. 6. Delay results

without and with black hole attacks on the MANET network
for AODV and DSR routing protocols.
A. Throughput analysis
Fig. 5 shows throughput results of the simulation. In terms
of throughput, AODV and DSR routing protocol had the ability
to transmit different data. In AODV, in the no attack scenario,
the throughput was 216.14 bit/s while the DSR only had 73.42
bit/s. This was caused by several factors. One reason why
the DSR protocol had a lower throughput was that it uses
the Source Routing mechanism when searching for the route,
which makes the route search longer and affects its throughput.
The second reason was the AODV uses periodic messages on
nodes that have formed a route to maintain its route; thus, the
AODV has greater throughput than DSR.
In a single black hole scenario, the throughput of the AODV
routing protocol decreased by 4.25% while the DSR protocol
experienced a slightly different decrease of 4.62%. This was
caused by the influence of the malicious Black Hole node
that makes the MANET network become unstable due to the
absorption process and the disposal of packages carried out by
the black hole nodes and resulting in decreased throughput.
Meanwhile, in the collaborative black hole attacks sce-
nario, there was a significant throughput decrease of 9.21%
and 13.38% for the AODV and DSR protocols, respectively,
compared to the no attack scenario. This decline was caused
by black hole attacks that were carried out in groups, which
resulted in a significant decrease in throughput.
B. Delay analysis
The comparison of the delay results in all scenarios are
shown in Fig. 6. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the average delay
in the AODV protocol was smaller than the DSR, which
means that the DSR protocol required a longer time in packet
delivery. The high delay in DSR was related to the DSR route
search that is based on Source Routing, which makes it has a
longer delay compared to the AODV protocol. However, the
DSR can still be categorized in the excellent category [16].
When the MANET Network was given a single and collab-
orative black hole, the two routing protocols gave nearly the
same response. When the attack occurs, the performance of
the network became unstable, especially the delay parameters
became erratic. This was caused by the black hole node tried
to hold the packet at a certain time and then released it in a
certain time too. This affects the latency of the two routing
protocols to fluctuate.
C. Packet Loss analysis
As can be seen in Fig. 7, in the no attack scenario,
both routing protocols experienced a very small packet loss.
However, in the single or collaborative black hole attack,
packet loss occurred in both protocols. Packet losses in the
AODV protocol for the single and collaborative black hole
attack were 1.72% and 1.88%, respectively.
The packet loss of the AODV was smaller than the DSR
routing protocol. In DSR, the packet losses for the single and
collaborative black hole attack were 2.16% and 6.06%, respec-
 7.00% [8] J. Kumar, M. Kulkarni, and D. Gupta, ”Effect of Black Hole Attack
6.06% on MANET Routing Protocols,” International Journal of Computer
6.00% Network and Information Security, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 64–72, 2013.
[9] A. Kumar B R, L. C. Reddy, and P. S. Hiremath, ”Performance
Packet Loss Ra!o (%)

5.00% Comparison of Wireless Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Routing Protocols,”

4.00%
International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, vol.
8, no. 6, pp. 337–343, 2008.
3.00% [10] J. J.-N. Liu and I. Chlamtac, ”Mobile Ad Hoc Networking with A
2.16% View of 4G Wireless: Imperatives and Challenges,” in Mobile Ad Hoc
1.72% 1.88%
2.00% Networking, S. Basagni, M. Conti, S. Giordano, and I. Stojmenovic,
Eds. New Jersey: IEEE Press and Wiley Interscience, 2004, pp. 1–46.
1.00%
0.15% 0.01% [11] S. Puri and V. Arora, ”Performance of MANET: A Review,” Interna-
0.00% tional Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, vol. 9, no. 11,
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 pp. 544–549, 2014.
[12] Usha and Bose, ”Comparing the Impact of Black Hole and Gray Hole
AODV DSR
Attacks in Mobile Adhoc Networks,” Journal Computer Science, vol. 8,
no. 11, pp. 1788–1802, 2012.
[13] C. Lohi and S.K Sharma, ”A Survey of Mitigation Techniques to Black
Fig. 7. Packet Loss Ratio results
Hole Attack and Gray Hole Attack in MANET,” International Journal
Computer Technology & Application, vol. 5, no. April, pp. 560–566,
2014.
tively. However, even though AODV and DSR experienced a [14] S. Lalar and A. K. Yadav, ”Comparative Study of Routing Protocols in
packet loss, the values were still in the good category. Packet MANET,” Oriental Journal of Computer Science and Technology, vol.
10, no. 1, pp. 174–179, 2017.
loss that occurred in these two protocols was caused by the [15] M. Medadian, K. Fardad, and A. Mebadi, ”Proposing a Method to
nature of the black hole node that holds the packet and then Remove Gray Hole Attack in AODV Protocol in MANET,” International
discards it when the network is active. Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, vol. 2, no.
6, pp. 512–518, 2013.
IV. C ONCLUSIONS [16] ETSI, ”Telecommunication and Internet Protocol Harmonization Over
Network (TIPHON): General Aspects of Quality of Service (QoS),”
The study tried to find out the effects of black hole attacks ETSI, vol. 2.1.1, pp. 1–37, 1999.
on the performance of AODV and DSR routing protocols. The
QoS parameters that were used to analyze the performance of
both routing protocols were throughput, delay, and packet loss
ratio. The AODV routing protocol showed smaller throughput
value decrease if compared to the DSR routing protocol when
exposed with single and collaborative black hole attacks.
Furthermore, the DSR routing protocol experienced larger
packet loss when collaborative black hole attack occurs if
compared to the AODV routing protocol. This means that the
AODV is more suitable to be used as the routing protocols on
MANET networks, especially when the MANET network is
hit by a black hole.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. R. Roy, ”Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” in Handbook of Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks for Mobility Models, London: Springer, 2011, pp. 3–22.
[2] X. Li, ”Topology Control in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” in Mobile Ad
Hoc Networking, S. Basagni, M. Conti, S. Giordano, and I. Stojmenovic,
Eds. New Jersey: IEEE Press and Wiley Interscience, 2004, pp. 175–205.
[3] S. K. Sarkar, T. . Basavaraju, and C. Puttamadappa, ”Routing Protocols
for Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,” in Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks:
Principles, Protocols, and Applications, New York: Auerbach Publica-
tion, 2008, pp. 59–114.
[4] A. N. Thakare and M. Y. Joshi, ”Performance Analysis of AODV & DSR
Routing Protocol in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Internation Journal of
Computer Applications: Special Issue on MANETs, no. 4, pp. 211–218,
2010.
[5] A. M. Kanthe, D. Simunic, and R. Prasad, ”Comparison of AODV and
DSR On-Demand Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks ,” 1st
International Conference on Emerging Technology Trends in Electronics
Communication and Networking (ET2ECN), pp. 1–5, 2012.
[6] E. Fazeldehkordi, I. S. Amiri, and O. A. Akanbi, A Study of Black Hole
Attack Solutions: On AODV Routing Protocol in MANET, no. March.
Syngress Elsevier, 2016.
[7] A. A. Chavan, D. S. Kurule, P. U. Dare, ”Performance Analysis of
AODV and DSDV Routing Protocol in MANET and Modifications in
AODV against Black Hole Attack,” 7th International Conference on
Communication, Computing and Virtualization 2016, Procedia Computer
Science vol. 79, pp. 835-844, 2016.